CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-86147NVD status: Deferred

Apache bRPC: External Control of File Name or Path

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2026-86147 is a high-severity external control of file name or path vulnerability in Apache bRPC from Apache, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.5 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. The record lists version 1.18.0 as the first without the flaw, so updating Apache bRPC to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.55% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Update Apache bRPC to 1.18.0 or a later version.
  2. Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
ApacheApache bRPCbefore 1.18.01.18.0

Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.

How the severity score breaks down

Attack vector
NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
Attack complexity
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Privileges required
NoneNo account or login is needed.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
Confidentiality
NoneNo data is disclosed.
Integrity
NoneNothing can be modified.
Availability
HighThe component can be taken down completely.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H. Scored by CISA (ADP).

Official description

External control of file name or path and uncontrolled resource consumption in Apache bRPC (version < 1.18.0) on all platforms allows remote attackers who can reach the builtin service port to create directories and truncate/overwrite files with the privileges of the server process, or to hold the process-wide CPU/contention profiler for an arbitrarily long time. Root Cause: 1. The builtin /flags service allows gflags carrying a validator to be modified at runtime via ?setvalue=. The bvar/mbvar dump path gflags (bvar_dump_file, bvar_dump_tabs, mbvar_dump_file) were registered with an accept-anything validator whose only purpose was to wake the dumping thread. A remote attacker could therefore repoint the dump path (e.g. GET /flags/bvar_dump_file?setvalue=/victim/dir/target followed by GET /flags/bvar_dump?setvalue=true, or the equivalent for mbvar_dump_file, which is used verbatim without a forced suffix), making the dumping thread recursively create directories and open/truncate files at attacker-chosen locations. Tab names in bvar_dump_tabs were appended to the path without sanitization, allowing '..' to escape the configured directory. 2. The /pprof builtin service did not clamp the ?seconds= parameter to FLAGS_max_profiling_seconds (a limit that /hotspots enforced). A single request such as ?seconds=2147483647 made the handler sleep for decades while holding the process-wide gperftools CPU profiler or bthread contention profiler, so /hotspots/cpu and /hotspots/contention returned 503 for everyone else during that time. Affected Scenarios: Any Apache bRPC server exposing the builtin services (enabled by default on the same port as normal RPC traffic) to untrusted networks. How to Fix: (Choose one of the following options) 1. Upgrade bRPC to version 1.18.0, which fixes this issue. 2. Apply this patch: https://github.com/apache/brpc/pull/3523 Note: After the fix, bvar_dump_file, bvar_dump_tabs and mbvar_dump_file can no longer be modified at runtime through the /flags builtin service. They can still be changed programmatically via google::SetCommandLineOption(), taking effect on the next dump cycle. The profiling duration of /pprof is now capped by the -max_profiling_seconds gflag (default 300 seconds), which can be adjusted by the server owner.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: External Control of File Name or Path

The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to inbox.txt and ID 2 could map to profile.txt. Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap provide this capability.
  • Run your code in a jail or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict all access to files within a particular directory. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.

More External Control of File Name or Path vulnerabilities (CWE-73)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: yes, technical impact: partial).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Other vulnerabilities in Apache bRPC

All Apache bRPC vulnerabilities

Recent External Control of File Name or Path vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.